>>23633688>my subjective take is the supreme take even though it only knows the context that I have that I refuse to expand upon; regardless, even if I were to expand it, I'm not willing to surrender my original position because I am this chuffed to the point where my perspective is a warped observation that is hilariously off skew In Poker, we call this a double bluff. I got be lying out of my ass, I could be lying about lying out my ass. The question is, "Are you going to call?" I'm not going to tell you the truth to your face, not here, not publicly. Do you want to extend your context of a situation, or simply keep your subjective, even if wildly incorrect, because hey, at least even if you aren't in the full know, at least your subjective is yours and yours alone.
But, to add more murkiness to the pot, (as is the nature of this mask)
You ever go fishing? Some fish will bite anything, even an empty hook. Some fish require specialized tackles, and bait. Are the fishing pole, the tackle the bait the fisherman, or are three part of the same mechanism with a set goal in mind?
I am asking you, the turtle living in the pond, what your perspective is in that.
As per your latter half, things go at their own pace, because in the criminal justice system, it goes at the pace of paperwork. A slow grind, but one that grinds regardless. That's a good thing, imagine for a moment, you, being from the UK, could be arrested same day for something you posted online, even in two weeks. That would be pretty dystopian yeah?
So in this, what will you do? Continue to swim in the water, look at the hook and be like "Damnable hook, that's all there is to you. You and your flashy colors. I hate you. You bring trouble here" Or will you bite the hook and see something a little bigger, with more context and be introduced a world of context that you never knew where you will see, that I was right and there was never a moment that the fisherman lied?
